Page:The ecclesiastical architecture of Scotland ( Volume 3).djvu/648

is the vaulting rib which I show at C. This, you say, is a 'coarse' moulding. But the coarseness is not apparent when you compare it with the rib in the

Fig. 1.

Mouldings of Rood Screen at St. Mungo's.

sacristy (D), of date about 1446; the rib in the chapter house (E), of date about 1425; or the same rib in the lower church, of date about 1240. You frequently give expression to your opinion that the work executed in Scotland about the year 1500 was 'inferior.' Sweeping generalisations of this kind are of no value in our work. I send you a process block (Fig. 2). It illustrates the carved boss in the vaulting of the aisle of Car Fergus, of Blacader's time, being the very first seen on entering, and so close to the eye that it may almost be touched by the hand. No work of any period—certainly not of Bishop Cameron's time—can excel it in beauty, and it is only one of many equally beautiful. You state that the work in the screen 'is considerably superior to that of the adjoining altars, which are certainly by that bishop' (Archbishop Blacader). It is a fact that you are here comparing work, which is as sharp as when it left the carver's hand, with work at the floor level which is now so worn and defaced as almost to be obliterated. The altars are of different design, and that now on the north side is of earlier date, and was rebuilt and repaired only by the archbishop. If this single altar stood originally in the centre, as the one of the same name did at Durham, and if, as is not impossible, it was originally built by Bishop Cameron, then you condemn as 'inferior' what, if you had only known, you ought to praise as 'superior.'

"Mr. Honeyman, whose early opinion you quote, writing to me, for my use here, says, in reference to the Glasgow rood screen—'I must say that circumstances which you have brought to my notice have considerably changed my opinion regarding this. I quite recognise the close affinity of the south transept door at Melrose and the rood screen at Lincluden, and I am quite prepared to believe that the man who designed these, also designed the rood screen here. If it can be proved that the work at Melrose and Lincluden was not executed till about 1480, or later, then I shall feel bound to agree with you as to the age of our screen.' The proof as to the age of the Melrose door has been given in my book.

"Your reliance on your unwise generalisation regarding the 'inferior' quality of all work at the end of the fifteenth century has blinded you to the facts at Melrose, as elsewhere. The magnificent panel carved with the royal arms, of which I gave an enlarged photograph (p. 55), is dated 1505. There is nothing finer of its kind in the country, and the carved bosses in the presbytery vault are remarkable for their rare beauty, and yet one of them bears the arms of Margaret, wife of James IV. You state that 'the building or restoration of the